Advertise on podcast: In Summation - The Final Word

In any criminal justice system, there is bound to be abuse.  No system is perfect, not even close.  But the case discussed in this episode is one of the most egregious top-to-bottom failures of law enforcement in New York history.  Rights were violated, and at every turn where someone could have taken responsibility and ended the parade of injustice, they just doubled down. Listen as colleague and law partner Robert Gottlieb joins Paul to discuss the 1989 case involving five boys aged 14-16 who would come to be known as the Central Park Five. These five black and Latino boys were causing trouble in Central Park, in Manhattan, on the night of April 19, 1989.  They were assaulting people, robbing them of their wallets and food, and generally carrying on.  They were part of a larger group of between 20-30 kids total.  They had all been arrested between 10 and 11 pm that evening for various low level offenses and were detained in the local police precinct. A 28 year old white investment banker named Trisha Meili was jogging in the park between 9 and 10 pm that night.  She was assaulted, dragged off the running path, brutally sexually assaulted and left for dead.  She was in a coma for nearly 12 days.  Hours later her unconscious body was found and the focus immediately shifted to the five boys already in custody. Extreme and illegal police tactics were used to coerce confessions from four of the five boys.  Interrogations of minors took place with no parent or attorney, they were denied food, water, and sleep over nearly 30 hours.  In the end, four made videotaped confessions which would later become the only evidence in the trials against them. Listen to the breakdown of how a media landscape contributed to the piling miscarriage of justice, how law enforcement failed the city it swore to protect, and how even when the truth came to light, it was over a decade before any small semblance of justice was attained. Enjoy.

Hello Listeners and Friends, In this installment of In Summation, we discuss the Doomsday Mom, Lori Vallow Daybell, a woman who serves as proof that religious extremism is exceptionally dangerous.  These cases have it all, extramarital affairs, assassination attempts, mental disease, fanaticism, money, you name it.  And you get TWO cases this time, isn't that grand? Lori Daybell was married 5 times, but only accused of killing one ex-husband, and two of her kids, and her 5th husband's wife, and trying to kill her nephew-in-law, and stealing social security benefits...and possibly even her brother, though evidence linking her to that hasn't been established. This episode is a complicated story of how twisted beliefs can be used to justify truly horrific behavior.  Enjoy!

Welcome back!  The wait for a new episode is over. In a triumphant return, Paul breaks down the federal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs.  Combs was charged with RICO, sex trafficking, and interstate transportation for the purposes of prostitution. In this episode, we discuss what overcharging looks like, how fame affects criminal cases, and how to know when to put a case on as a defendant. Sean Combs need no introduction, he has been a household name in the United States since the 1990s.  We have witnessed the evolution of the man from an upstart rapper talking about his life on the streets and his impoverished childhood to becoming one of the most successful cross-industry entrepeneurs in the world. But with all that fame, fortune, and money came vices.  Combs notoriously hosted wild "freak off" sex parties, and some participants in those parties came forward to claim that they were not willing participants, that they were forced into commercial sex acts, and that Combs controlled them through a criminal organization using violence, coercion, financial malfeasance, and even arson. Was Sean Combs a sex trafficking, criminal mastermind?  Or was he simply an abusive boyfriend with ex-girlfriends trying to cash in on his status? Listen and learn what the Sean Combs prosecution was about, and how the defense team kept the focus where it needed to be.

OJ Simpson's arrest and trial captivated the country.  Dubbed the "trial of the century," the 1995 spectacle grabbed eyeballs with gavel to gavel coverage for approximately 10 months.  The trial was packed with celebrity, DNA evidence, grusome crime scene photos, a massive fall from grace, racial tensions, devastating cross-examinations, jury field trips, and more. Since I couldn't possibly cover this massive case all on my own, I bring in special guest and attorney friend Anna Gorisch to help parse through the issues and cultural import of the moment.  Thanks Anna! Enjoy!

Lawyers, like other professionals, tend to use a lot of industry terms which don't make sense to the average person.  Sometimes, those terms pop up in artcles and media describing a case, without explanation (often because the journalists themselves do not fully understand what they mean). Today, we discuss the term collateral estoppel, and what it means in a legal context.   Enjoy.

Welcome back.  In this brief episode, Paul digs into the difference between the terms decriminalization and legalization.  They are frequently used interchangeably by people who do not fully appreciate the difference. At the end of this In Summation Explains episode, you will come away with a deeper understanding of just what it means when the government decriminalizes, or legalizes, certain behaviors. Enjoy.

In the second installment of In Summation Explains, Paul explains what happens when someone undoes the wrong they caused before they get caught, and whether that is a defense to any potential liability after the fact. If you like this new format, write in and make your voice heard.  Paul hopes you enjoy it and write in with more questions to answer.

What does habeus corpus mean? how does it work? what does it actually do?  In this new segment of In Summation, Paul explains specific legal terms and areas of law which confuse people.  This is going be based mostly on listener feedback, so if you are curious about a legal latin phrase, or legal theory, write in and Paul may explain it for you. Please leave feedback if you like this particular type of episode.  Paul is trying to expand content and answer some listener questions and this seemed like the best way to accomplish both of those things.  If you enjoy it, let us know.

In this episode, recurring guest Adam Uris and I discuss the recent New York prosecution of Daniel Penny, the 24 year old marine corps veteran who killed Jordan Neely on the subway after Neely was aggressive and threatening to other passengers.  Was this done in defense of subway riders?  Did Penny go too far?  Was the homicide justified or criminal?  Adam and Paul discuss the culteral and legal aspects of the case and trade ideas on whether this case ever should've been brought, how the missteps of certain parties affected the outcome, and why the jury ultimately came to the decision they did.

Hello All, At the end of October there was a whirlwind of activity in the Young Thug trial down in Fulton County Georgia.  All of a sudden, in the span of one week, multiple defendants opted to take a plea after nearly two years at trial. Listen to the breakdown of how the circus put on by the Fulton County DA came to an end, the contours of the plea, and make the decision for yourself whether it was the right way for Jeffery Williams to end his involvement in this proceeding. Since the recording of the episode, the remaining two defendants still on trial finally got their verdicts.  One was convicted of a single crime, the other was acquitted.  Paul still holds to the belief that Williams would have been convicted of at least something, which would likely have landed him with some additional jail time. Paul hopes this brings some clarity to a commonly misunderstood area of criminal practice.

The wait is over and In Summation - The Final Word is back. At the request of a listener (thanks Ben!), in this episode we tackle a case which has really become THE case that people bring up when discussing how litigious American people are.  We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and sued the company for millions. But as you'll see, the narrative of what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that suit, has dramatically changed over time.  She has gone from being the victim to a greedy opporuntist who manipulated a broken court system for her own personal gains. Before you make any judgments, listen to what really happened, and how Liebeck's life changed as a result of this case. As this is a civil case and I do not frequently litigate in the civil courts, Paul asks for a bit of understanding if you have additional questions.  He will, as always, respond, but if it requires additional research on his end it may not be as quick as listeners are accustomed to. Sit back and enjoy.

Hello Loyal Listeners, In Summation returns with a thorough explanation of one of the most truly absurd cases to take place in recent memory.  Rapper/Hip Hop artist Young Thug burst into the music industry around 2013 and quickly became one of the most fresh and innovate voices in the genre.  He did several collaborations with world famous talent and his star was rising.  After his first studio album went platinum, it seemed as though he was solidying himself with serious potential for a long career. He had his own Atlanta based rap label, "YSL," which also showcased several of his friends and associates who also rapped and produced albums and mixtapes.  YSL expanded to create and promote a very popular clothing line in the fashion industry.  Young Thug went from growing up in abject poverty, to being wildly successful. But not everyone believed this meteoric rise to fame and prominence was done within the confines of the law.  Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the Atlanta PD accused YSL of being a violent street gang, and claim Young Thug is the leader.  He was arrested in May 2022 and, as of September 2024, is still in custody. Listen as Paul describes the absolute farce of a trial put on in Fulton County.  This episode contains a thorough explanation of RICO, ethics, misconduct, overtrying a case, and the intersection of free speech and expression, specifically in the music industry, with criminal prosecutions.   There are times when no hollywood screenwriter could ever capture the absurdity of real life, and the trial of Jeffery Williams is one of those times.  Strap in and get ready, you will not believe what is happening in Georgia.

At this point, it's become difficult to keep track of all the different places that former (and possibly future) President Donald Trump has been indicted.  To recap: he has been indicted in New York County by District Attorney Alvin Bragg.  That case has already gone to trial and he was convicted of nearly three dozen counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up another crime.  That is NOT the case we discuss today. He's also been indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, on state RICO charges.  That office appears to be in a bit of a shamble as 7 months into a different RICO trial, against Young Thug, the wheels have fallen off, 2 judges have been on-and-off the case, and a mistrial seems pretty likely at this point.  This is also NOT the case covered by today's episode. There is also the case in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court regarding Trump's possession of, and refusal to return, certain classified documents.  That case was recently dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon.  That is also NOT the case we are discussing. Today's case concern's allegations that Donald Trump attempted to use various unlawful means to subvert the election, prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and deprive ordinary citizens in several states of their right to make their voice heard in our government through voting. Chances are you are at least somewhat familiar with this indictment, but do you really know what Trump is accused of doing?  In this episode, Paul breaks down the indictment so you can understand what the Government has claimed Trump actually did to break the law, and Paul also discusses the recent decision on Presidential Immunity from the Supreme Court, as neither Trump, nor the Government, got the decision they wanted.  But if Trump lost in that hearing, why are so many commentators losing their mind over the decision?  Listen and find out. This will be part 1, as there was a lot to cover and the case is now set to go to trial, so stay tuned as (maybe) a trial episode will be coming later on! Hope you enjoy.

Hello everyone, I've missed you. Due to a confluence of factors which I won't waste time or energy going into here, we had a slightly longer hiatus than I expected, but we are back and I expect the content to be a little more regular going forward. This episode is meaningful for a number of reasons.  First, I bring on my law partner, Bob Gottlieb of Robert C. Gottlieb and Associates, to discuss the issues surrounding the Crumbley case.  Second, while we agree on some of the guideline principles, we do not see perfectly eye to eye on this prosecution.  You asked for more viewpoint diversity and variety.  I deliver.  Third, this is truly a fascinating case because it revisits some of the topics we've discussed in previous episodes, but in a new way. In late November 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley bought their 15 year old son, Ethan, a Sig Sauer pistol as an early Christmas present.  In Oxford, Michigan, where they lived, this was not uncommon or out of the ordinary.  Ethan took the requisite safety courses, went to the gun range with his mother, had no history of violence, and was not a problem at school. Regardless, a few days after the pistol was given to him as a gift (though still supposed to be locked in a safe by his parents), Ethan brought both the gun and ammunition to his high school, and killed four people. Ethan pleaded guilty in October 2022 to all the charges and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a 16 year old.   But the county prosecutor went on and charged his parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley with manslaughter for their role in facilitating the shooting.  The prosecution argued that the parents knew, or at least should have known, that giving their mentally disturbed 15 year old a gun would result in a school shooting. We tackle the question of when a parent can be liable for the acts of their child, especially if the child has already been found fully liable for those acts themselves, and to what degree a parent needs to be fully aware of what is going on their child's life.  When does negligent parenting become accessory to homicide? Paul and Bob hope you enjoy the conversation.

Welcome Back Listeners! In this episode of In Summation, Paul discusses a horror movie turned real life.  Inspired by the 1996 horror classic, Scream, Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik donned ghostface masks, black robes, and hunting knives to murder their high school classmate and friend, Cassie Jo Stoddart.  Not only did they stab her 30 times while she was alone, house sitting for relatives, but they filmed themselves talking about the act before, and after, the crime. We look how two teenagers can sink to such moral depravity.  We talk through interrogation techniques, and how good investigators narrow their focus on leads and ask the right questions.  We discuss how and when a judge might decide to hold two trials, trying each defendant separately, instead of at the same time.  And we answer one of the most common, and difficult, questions about being a defense attorney, "how can you defend awful people who have done such awful things?" Strap in Slasher Flick fans, because this installment shows how real life puts Hollywood to shame.  Enjoy!